I personally disagree. I think the "new" format is more desirable in terms of an encyclopediac article. When that is the case, I don't think we should flat out move the "old" format, but we should rework it to "Outline of X season". See the page on outlines. That would avoid the redundancy between pages. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? Look at seasons like 2006 AHS. There is an article for each storm, a main article for the season (which is organized by month), a list article for the season (which is organized by storm), and a timeline article (which shows what each storm did at what time). Is there any way we can cut back on that redundancy? It smells strongly of content forking. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Really. A timeline article is a list that indicates exactly when a storm formed/dissipated. They are inserting to read, have have cool graphics. the new format. The sub-article have more detail, with the List of Z Pacific hurricane season storms page gives less detail (focused on MH by storm to storm), while the new format gives even less detail (focuses on impact and history from a season scale as it includes lulls, active periods, ect. YETropicalCyclone 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the timeline has the exact same info as any of the other two season articles. The season article already contains the data on formation, dissipation, peak intensity, and whatnot. That is a serious redundancy. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this to come up for quite some time. It is my opinion based on the content forks article that the timeline article is mostly a redundant content fork. Sure, you can argue that there is slightly more specific information within the time line, but it looks like a list version of the seasonal article, to me anyway. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They are similar, but not the same, as DR said it is slightly more specific. Timelines don't mention peaks, and they do mention upgrades and downgrades, which season articles don't always. We have many FLC's with nobody thinking it is a content fork. YETropicalCyclone

Timelines are not content forks at all, outside of the NHC AOR, - they actually contain a lot more details than you think. Using the 2008 PTS timeline as an example it contains a fuck load information that wouldn't even get in the season articles, for example the CMA BT.Jason Rees (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Exactly to DR! I did a search a while back and found that our timelines were like no other. Normal timelines are like "Timeline of space exploration" or "Timeline of X country's history", which are much broader topics. Our timelines have when they form/dissipate (check, they appear in infoboxes and in prose), when they become tropical storms (check, they always appear in prose), when they become hurricanes (check, they always appear), their peak intensity (check, always), and then each Category change. The last aspect is the only one which might not be in prose, but that is because they are arbitrary man-made categories. There is no basic difference between a storm with 80 kt winds vs. 85 kt. If a storm is rapidly intensifying, there is no need to mention "at 0600 UTC it became a C2, at 1200 a C3, and 1800 a C4". It depends from storm to storm. It is always mentioned when/if it becomes a C5, and generally major status is mentioned as well. Therefore, timelines are completely redundant and are content forks. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No their not - for example NMHSS upgrades/downgrades arent mentioned in prose, but are included in timelines where applicable.Jason Rees (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a collective term for a warning center (eg PAGASA CMA HKO etc).Jason Rees (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as they're not official warning centers as a whole, each upgrade by them is not needed (sans unique situations, like if PAGASA had a TC as a TS but JMA/JTWC didn't). Anything the timeline has is generally either redundant or not needed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually i believe they are required as we include unofficial up/downgrades by the JTWC and the CMA HKO etc are more official and have been more offical than the JTWC. Also there is only 2 NMHSS that i know off that actually does a best track analysis outside of the JMA. Also timelines aren't redundant esspecially when you compare them to othertimelines which copy the format of our ones but do them on a yearly basis as opposed to a daily or monthly basis.Jason Rees (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, consider Atlantic timelines for a second, since we have many more of those. There there is much more redundancy, would you agree? --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on Atlantic timelines? They're entirely redundant with the season article(s) and the storm articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of colour in charts on season articles

I am not sure my title is the clearest in what I would like to address, but hopefully my explanation below is clearer.

I came across the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season article just recently and found the chart used in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season#Season effects section to be very colour overload. I understand the use of the different colours for the difference storm categories, but I am not sure the entire row needs to be coloured that way; to quote a friend of mine, "it looks like smurf barf". I took the opportunity to put something together as a suggestion of mine (I wanted to learn tables anyways) in my sand box - User:Jordan 1972/sandbox. It uses the same colours but does not overpower the reader with so much. If you look at the history in my sandbox, you will be able to see the types of updates that need to be made for each additional storm and landfall. I did not create the whole season to date, but I think it provides enough of an example.

I looked around the project pages and could not find anything discussions that talked about this particular chart in the style section. I decided to post this suggestion here on the project page rather then the article talk page because if the change was to be made it would need the comments of the project then just the page. Please give some consideration to my suggestion -- I am a user of the page (rather then an editor) and I think my table is cleaner while still providing the same information. Thanks --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it. We might need to add a small tooltip to the text-less columns, but I'd be strongly in favor of switching the table to a less epilepsy-inducing format. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Election of - Member of the Month - Abandoned

The List of Nominees is in the table below, please add your name and put a Y under the nominee (as shows in the example). The Voting lines will be closed by Anirudh Emani (talk) on October 20 at any time. Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please vote, if noone has voted, the the member of the month selection mayn't be easy.Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not even include our most important editors. They are more importnat articles than active storm articles. And so, did you read the instructions? Also, I bevilve it is suppose to be an IRC ballet. YETropicalCyclone 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

An IRC ballet? Is it as graceful as it sounds? => Thegreatdr (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

oops! im abandoning the voting lines for now, please post at my talk page on how to choose the member of the month and what articles to search on.Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

new map icon?

I've noticed map for the 2010 Atlantic season appear to include a new icon (a triangle). What it is supposed to represent? I am a bit stumped since it appears at both ends of the spectrum (including deeply over land prior to reaching even TD level in some cases). Circéus (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, that's different from what I thought you meant. For the whole title conventions thing like that, I agree that "List of hurricanes that affected (or "affecting") _________" would be a good standard for the titles. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: I support the proposal at it seems like a good idea to me. Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't really get the purpose of the proposal. "List of United States hurricanes" is much shorter and concise. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very true. But, doesn't "United States hurricanes" sound very odd. For me, it sounds like, I don't know, hurricanes owned by the United States? ;) When I first came across these titles, my first intention was to move, as being incorrectly named or confusing title. Rehman(+) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no doubt you're right but, don't you think the current title is a little too simple? Compared to "List of United Stated hurricanes", isn't something like "List of hurricanes that affected the United States" a bit more better? At lease in terms of understanding the topic? I don't know if its because you guys were working on these lists for sometime that you don't realize it but, for me as a reader accessing these for the first time, I find it quite misleading. No offence meant. Rehman(+) 00:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, no. It makes perfect sense to me, and seeing as dozens of these lists have been audited via WP:FLC without objections to their titles, I don't see it as much of an issue. Juliancolton (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. My main reason behind this nomination is to figure out how articles of this topic are currently titled. So (even though it could later be renamed), would creating an article with a title like "List of Madagascar cyclones" be appropriate? Rehman(+) 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my comment above. Per above, I don't get it; why can't we have a more general "Lists of cyclones" compared to "Lists of tropical cyclones"? Sorry, I am not that into meteorology. ;) Rehman(+) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no exhaustive record anywhere of the non-tropical systems that affected an area. As such, adding the possibility of adding non-tropical systems to the lists would make them impossible to complete, or to keep up to date in any case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 11:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. But we could still name it as "List of cyclones that affected India" per WP:COMMONNAME, and mention it in the lead that the page lists only tropical cyclones. Also, please see my comment above to User:Cucurbitaceae. Thanks. Rehman(+) 00:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SWIO

Ive had to nominate several of our SWIO categories for CFD since they do not have the most official name please comment here. Here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what the current consensus is, what should it be? I personally think we should have all retired/name-used-once storms have the main undisambiguated article, and a set index page at Tropical Storm Blah (disambiguation). In other cases, Tropical Storm Blah and Hurricane Blah should point to the set index page, with the exception that storms likely to be retired may have a redirect to them from the undisambiguated article.

I would keep all non-retired storms at the Tropical Storm Blah (Year) and redirect to it if is the only use or is important (use disambiguiation pages if there are other uses). For all retired storms it should be Cyclone Blah. — Iune(talk) 00:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What Iune stated is still the current policy within the project, right? I haven't been editing much the past four months and would like to stay current. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's basically the policy. I could see some argument of having storms like Gordon 94 or Karl 10 having the main article, since they are the most notable (unless/until it gets retired). We would only have to worry about changing the article title once every six years. I would think that would be a very small batch of storms, though. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the closing comment at Talk:Hurricane Karl#Requested move, whether a storm is officially "retired" is irrelevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. If readers entering the name of a storm in the Search box are most likely looking for one particular storm, then the article about that storm needs to be at that name; they should not have to go through a disambiguation or index page to get to that article (in the unlikely event they are searching for one of the lesser-known storms, a hatlink will redirect the minority that affects to the dab/index page). Usage patterns change, of course. If that name is assigned to some other storm 4, 8 or 32 years from now, and that storm achieves sufficient notoriety to upstage or at least challenge the primacy of the earlier storm, then it can be renamed. But, in the mean time, if a given storm is the primary topic for its name, officially retired or not, its article needs to be at its name, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

I suggest that this naming guideline be updated to reflect and abide by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria and considerations accordingly. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a primary topic here, at least not by this measure. In this case leaving the dab page at the name in question, Hurricane Gordon, seems appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alma 08 was retired, and it is the highest viewed article with that name. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It was long consensus that only retired names get the name without the year in brackets, except for those basins in which names are used only once (in fact each storm name is kind of retired). Why this long standing consensus was now overthrown? There's no indication now wether or not Karl will be retired. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We never violated that policy in the first place. The primary topic is retired storms (if any). YETropicalCyclone 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What about hurricane articles that were named only once? We had a ton of those, and we got too far into the habit of "Hurricane Blah (19XX)" We're treating like article titles actually mean anything. They're a fairly arbitrary title that people might see when they click on an article link. They're also the link people will see when they search for a particular storm, but as shown above, Karl 2010 is the most popular Karl storm, so why shouldn't it not have the year? It's not like hurricane articles are that widely viewed. In the grand scheme of things, we are a pretty niche project who only get visitors when there's a major hurricane threatening the United States. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I personally have a big issue with that primary topic policy in general: it violates WP:NPOV. If an article is priorated in some way there must be an objective criteria for doing so. Some media hype resulting in a higher number of access is not an objective criteria. It actually is a really heavy violation of WP:NPOV. However I know that I am standing alone with this opinion. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of primary topic is to configure the encyclopedia such that readers searching for specific topics end up at those specific topics rather than dab pages as often as is reasonably possible. Since we don't track exactly what people are typing in Search boxes and where they end up, we have no exact way to determine this, but we can give it a reasonable try, and I think we do reasonably well on this. The definition at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that a given use of a term is primary if "it is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box."

The reason people are searching for a given topic is not relevant to any of this - all that matters is whether we're serving them as well as we can. If you want to argue that we would be serving them better by taking them to a dab page, fine, but take that up at the talk page for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because, at least for now, it represents Wikipedia community consensus. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In about three months of time it isn't very likely that a reader typing Hurricane Karl searched exactly for the 2010 'cane. In about three months of time the media hype is gone and for most readers that 'cane is a 'cane like every other as well. The move was premature. And, if you're talking about consensus and are upholding consensus as important, then I must observe that the move was made against the consensus of the discussion. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a different argument. Now you're saying that when determining primary topic you have to take WP:RECENTISM into account, especially news-hyped topics like hurricanes. That's a very good and interesting point, and probably should be incorporated into WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

That said, the most damaging hurricane of a given name is probably more likely to be searched for than the other hurricanes in the future, I would think. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But then as you yourself proved above the most damaging name (eg Gordon 94) of a hurricane isnt more likely to be searched for than the other hurricanes in the future.Jason Rees (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's not an absolute. Apparently being as "recent" as 2006 has an effect. On the other hand, many of those views of the 2006 Gordon could be a mistake, people going there in error when they're really looking for the big one from 1994. Hard to tell. When the primary topic is not clear, the convention is to go with a dab page. In the case of Karl the far biggest is also the most damaging and most recent, so there is little question about it being primary (most likely to be searched for), at least for the foreseeable future, if not forever. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Year

1980

1998

2004

2010

hPa

985

970

938

956

mph

85

105

145

120

Well, Karl (2004) was a cat 4 monster only little shy of strength to Charley and more powerful than Jeanne. Karl (2010) was much weaker than his precedessor. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Apparently how damaging, fatal and recent a storm is affect how likely it is to be viewed (which is what determines which if any is primary) much more than pure size, speed or strength. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even the statistics underline that. See f.ex. hits for Karl (2004) for January in comparison to September 2010 when due to Karl (2010) obviously many readers came in some way to view also the Karl (2004) article. That's a significant difference! --Matthiasb (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clicking on the wrong link on the dab page might explain many of the views for the 2004 Karl. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rather think that many users wanted to know what kind of storm the Karl before actually was. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Storm Article titles

I think we should be using the proper titles for tropical cyclones in Aus/SPAC. So i proposed it online and only got one response from Hurricanehink to go for it telling me none would care if we started to use them so i moved Tomas and Oli to STC. Then CB came online and asked me to bring it to a full discussion here. So here i am. i strongly believe we should use the most official and common name for the cyclones which is STC XXX per the Google test. Note i would like to change the NIO to Cyclonic Storm but thats an argument for another day.Jason Rees (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with using the official name. There are enough storms and interest in the NIO now (not to mention the IMD is reliable enough) that we should use the official names. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the 1949 to 1953, though? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He hasnt got it. "[20:51] <Cyclonebiskit> well...I should be more specific....I only have the info from 1944-1948".Jason Rees (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How does he have 1949 then? Where is 1950-1953? --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Andrew is essentially done with his part of the reanalysis, which covers part of the 1940s and 1950s, but there's nothing on the NHC or HRD websites about an official acceptance of this data. They have only accepted data into the 1920's, if memory serves. It could be years before they accept Andrew's work into HURDAT because of the way the committee makes decisions, not because of the quality of Andrew's efforts. I don't think there was any additional reanalysis accepted into HURDAT during 2010, which was unfortunate. There have been a couple e-mail exchanges between Andrew and myself concerning the 1950's, since I submitted several cases to them for addition during that time frame over six years ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Season summary table - direct hit & landfall --> areas affected?

I posted a discussion to the 2010 AHS talk page about the aforementioned topic. Any discussion would be helpful.

Typhoon in 1945 Japan–Washington flight?

1945 Japan–Washington flight is in the DYK today, and it says that a typhoon raging off Okinawa preceded the flight. 1940–49 Pacific typhoon seasons doesn't have a lot of information on the typhoons, but my best guess is Typhoon Ursula, but that would be quite a definition of "off Okinawa" if I'm reading the maps right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Ursula its not that far off Okinawa but based on the dates i think it will be more like Ida.Jason Rees (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BoM area of resposibility

As we know the BoM is responsible for the area below 10°S between 90°E and 160°E, with some exceptions in the Arafura and Corall seas. However, at this moment the TCWC Perth is indicating:

A low has developed near 7.5S 99E. The low is expected to move towards the

southwest and be located south of latitude 10S on Monday. The low is likely to

there is a high probability [over 50%] that the low will become a cyclone on

Sunday, the likelihood that it will remain north of latitude 10S reduces the

chance that it will be a cyclone in the Western Region on that day.

Here's my hypothetical question: Who would name that system if it yet hasn't entered the aor of the BoM when it reached TC intensity north of 10°S? We might see the answer by monday anyway but considering the location it is also possible that the system is near to the Réunion aor by the time it is crossing 10°S. Any clues? --Matthiasb (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone Tomas

Did the name Tomas became retired after its impact to Fiji earlier this year or is it still on the list? I didn't find any indications. Are the even any retirements in the South Pacific basin? --Matthiasb (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are retirements in SPAC - however whilst its obviously a retired name the upshot of the WMO meeting back in late April has been coming out in drips and drabs and theirs no official documentation yet to say Tomas is off the list.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Chantal on front page

The sentence " and each time it was anticipated to attain hurricane status; however, wind shear and later land interaction prevented strengthening to hurricane status." in the lead makes my grammar-sense tingle, badly; the repetition of "hurricane status" looks horrible especially on the front page. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal effects

Following up from recent conversations, Ive drawn up a new table for the Seasonal effects table. As previously discussed the old version contained original research and was described as a smurf in a bath.Jason Rees (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Might need some rowspan, or something to divide the season effects. at first glance, for Tia, I see Severe Minimal. I was like "conflict!". atomic7732 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure how i would add that in but the way i did it was to reference each countries impact rather than overall since it makes it easier to update it imo.Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried it out here. I listed both the landfalls, and the areas impacted. I removed all three direct hits the season had. I combined the wind and pressure section. Another options is to add a areas affected section in place of the ACE section we use to have. YETropicalCyclone 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the idea is to get rid of the landfalls section and replace that with areas affected. Why should the season impact section in 2003 focus more on Claudette than Isabel? Isabel caused 10 times the damage and 47 more deaths. Is Claudette any more important because its center happened to move over land twice, and Isabel only once? I believe it should be a simple "areas affected", and I do disagree with Jason Rees. I believe it should be just overall areas affected and overall impact. Separating impact by location could get time consuming, since we don't always have a completed damage total for every major location. Additionally, it isn't very useful saying "Minimal" or "Severe" damage, since those are subjective. If we don't know the overall damage total, so be it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is is rather less important, it a storm is landfalling or directly hitting or simply striking; think about that F-storm some years ago (don't remeber Fay or Felicia or what) which crossed Florida three times or so. OTOH it plays a role if a season has rather many severe hurricanes but mostly only fish-storms like this year or if (like some might have felt it) like 2005 as any other storm hit Florida. I disagree in general about "minimal" or "severe" because that indeed is sometimes what the TCR says: if the TCR says that the damage on the Island of XY was minimal then it would be OR or untrue to tell that it is unknown or even omitt it. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is in the userspace, so I'm not sure why it's tagged as belonging to this project, but since it is tagged, leaving this courtesy message. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice to project members

Can members please participate in this to better define our notability standards when making articles? Feel free to add anything. Thanks Darren23Edits|Mail 02:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

When a tropical cyclone crosses Mexico/Central America from one basin to the other, losing TC status during the trip, one article or two?

The merging, then splitting, of the Tropical Depression Eleven-E (2010) and Tropical Storm Hermine (2010) articles has brought this issue to center stage. We had been relatively consistent within the project until this occurred about folding both systems into one article, but have flip-flopped in regards to this system, so we need to decide what to do with this issue as a project. If a system is not considered a tropical cyclone during part of the passage, or there is disagreement among RSMCs, even if it is clear that they were different segments of the life history of the same low pressure area, should we have two separate articles instead of one merged article? If so, we need to get on the stick with Alma/Arthur and Fifi/Orlene to split those articles into two articles: one for each tropical cyclone. I could care less what is ultimately decided...just that we maintain consistency regarding this issue within the project, because there are other cases of this which have not gone through the GA/FA process yet, and at least one case of a system which already has. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely no for several storms, leading me to my suggestion that we'd have to take it to a case by case basis. Things like Cesar-Douglas 96 and Joan-Miriam 88, even Greta-Olivia 78 don't deserve their own articles, since really they are the same storm with two names. We have a TD that was part of Hurricane Gert 93 in the article under the moniker Hurricane Gert (1993). I know in one of the other projects I work with, we usually consolidate the ore minor system into the larger one under the larger article. Just my opinion of course, but I feel this would have to be on a case by case basis.Mitch32(TransportationHistorian) 15:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What's listed above covers most of the storms you listed. Those were systems which NHC deemed one tropical cyclone throughout the crossing, sometimes in real time (Joan/Miriam is the example of this) and other times after the fact (like Diana (1990) and Gert (1993) and their eastern pacific TD counterparts). However, per the above reasoning, Bret/Greg (1993) would need to be split into two articles as well. If we decide to do this as a project, we'll have to make a list of storms whose articles will need to be split into two. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason I think 11E should be separate is because it did cause a lot of impact on its own. Likewise with Alma/Arthur, the former of which was retired and the latter which caused decent damage in Belize. I agree that Fifi/Orlene should be two separate articles, if there is enough info for Orlene. I don't think that Bret 93 should have all of Greg included, simply because its remnants became Greg. IDK, I just feel that when there is enough content, then the two TC's should be separate articles. That should be the key deciding factor. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello project. The subject list has recently been re-reviewed and a number of issues should be resolved in order for it to retain its featured status. Comments are on the talkpage. If the comments are not addressed or responded to within a week then the list will be subject to demotion discussion. I think most of the comments are easily resolvable and I believe the project can tighten the list up to current standards without further "formal" methods. Feel free to ping me if you need further information on this formative process. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)